Quite sure they can , while i dont believe you will find anyway of doing it level one unless you play a small race and even then im not sure if you go the cavalier route , while a druid can.
The "Monstrous Companion" feature appears to be one way of doing what you want , just dont expect your mount to be all that powerful ofc.
You can gain a rules-legal flying mount which uses the animal companion rules by utilizing the monstrous mount and monstrous mount mastery feats.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
as class abilities?
Because melees don't get good things. You should know this by now!
==Aelryinth
My GM allowed me to use a Roc off the druid companion list (because I found it in the campaign). Realistically it didn't increase the power of my character in any great manner other than that I had better mobility and could kite grounded enemies. It felt much more thematic than empowering.
You might be able to get around it by going for Beast Rider Cavalier and hoping the GM doesn't read the fine print about flying AC restrictions ;)
You can gain a rules-legal flying mount which uses the animal companion rules by utilizing the monstrous mount and monstrous mount mastery feats.
The fact you need to spend TWO feats on it is ridiculous. Especially considering Leadership can do even better for one feat.
Also, lack of Roc.
At low level flight And lance break the game totally. At high levels , its fine
Uh "break the game"?Haha no. Seriously. At level 5 the wizard can cast fly. You need to be around level 7 to get a mount able to fly (unless you got a small character).
At low level flight And lance break the game totally. At high levels , its fineUh "break the game"?Haha no. Seriously. At level 5 the wizard can cast fly. You need to be around level 7 to get a mount able to fly (unless you got a small character).
Everyone and their mount has a different opinion on what constitutes "low level". He could've easily been talking about 1-4.
At low level flight And lance break the game totally. At high levels , its fineUh "break the game"?Haha no. Seriously. At level 5 the wizard can cast fly. You need to be around level 7 to get a mount able to fly (unless you got a small character).
So ... your point is that they should make a flying mount for level 5 , because wizard a one spell that does it?
Btw fly lasts mins/level , compare that to an actual mount that can do it all day long (lets not add the whole thing about the mount being capable of more than just flying ofc) and well , we can see the issue.
Overland Flight (which actually lasts) is level 9 for a wizard. Damm those OP cavaliers with their flying mounts of level 7...
I wont question that fact that wizard is awesome , neither do i think a guy having a flying mount breaks the game , but really , bringing in the wizard was just pushing it for no reason.
If anything , a better comparison would be the small druid with the roc.
Have you looked at the Sable Company Marine ranger archetype as an option? They use the same two feats, of course, but if you want a martial-style character on a flying mount, it's a definite contender.
In the politest way possible, because flight is highly overvalued because monsters (and/or the underlying combat system) are very poorly designed. Far too many monsters are absolutely useless against something faster or that can fly. Whether this is because ranged combat is exceedingly difficult for "monsters" or the monsters are just poorly designed, I don't know, but it is a significant problem that's frequently addressed by... well, not letting the players fly.
Monsters aren't meant to be 'designed' to be able to fight back against any possible threat. They're meant to be thematic. Ogres and dire tigers are thematic. They're not going to sprout wings or pull out a composite longbow just because PCs have got a permanent fly ability that was no part of the core rulebook (except for high-level wizards, who already have any number of ways to defeat that kind of enemy).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the politest way possible, because flight is highly overvalued because monsters (and/or the underlying combat system) are very poorly designed. Far too many monsters are absolutely useless against something faster or that can fly. Whether this is because ranged combat is exceedingly difficult for "monsters" or the monsters are just poorly designed, I don't know, but it is a significant problem that's frequently addressed by... well, not letting the players fly.Monsters aren't meant to be 'designed' to be able to fight back against any possible threat. They're meant to be thematic. Ogres and dire tigers are thematic. They're not going to sprout wings or pull out a composite longbow just because PCs have got a permanent fly ability that was no part of the core rulebook (except for high-level wizards, who already have any number of ways to defeat that kind of enemy).
Don't forget Druids (and anyone with access to the full Druid animal companion list), who can get a decent selection of large flying animal companions and/or shapeshift into tons of flying forms. And once you get beyond Core, which is hard to avoid in a thread about a non-Core class...
I guess I just don't see why it's fine for the nine-level casters to get permanent flight, but the guy who can only stab things can't get it. Especially when there's plenty of ways to make sure it's not available at low levels when it might break the game.
But nevermind. I'm sure you're Holy Pathfinder is perfect in every way.
As class abilities?
Because melees don't get good things. You should know this by now!
==Aelryinth
I'd say it all boils down to this.
|
Most GM's I've played (myself included) with will allow you to have a mount that's capable of flight eventually. Once the game is going if you find and tame some wild creatures or gain a flying beast cohort through trade then you're golden.
The mount is supposed to function like a druid animal companion and druids are quite capable of swapping their companions with a day or so of work so there isn't much reason not to do the same with a cavalier. Limited starting list sure but a horse/pony/whatever is pretty solid to start off with.
GM discretion of course! Dragons, Griffons and Pegasi aren't animals and are also not of animal intelligence so it wouldn't make sense for them to operate in the mount/animal companion system. Iconic mounts certainly but they fall under Leadership and would be Cohorts rather then class ability mounts. Hippogriffs aren't animals and lack the animal companion rules, though I think there might be something on the website for rangers that might work.
Rocs, Dire Bats and similar animals are what you'd want to be looking for. Something with that's got stats for an animal companion. It'd be up to you to actually find and train them though.
Now as for PFS...well that's for them to make things easier for them and not much else.
In the politest way possible, because flight is highly overvalued because monsters (and/or the underlying combat system) are very poorly designed. Far too many monsters are absolutely useless against something faster or that can fly. Whether this is because ranged combat is exceedingly difficult for "monsters" or the monsters are just poorly designed, I don't know, but it is a significant problem that's frequently addressed by... well, not letting the players fly.Monsters aren't meant to be 'designed' to be able to fight back against any possible threat. They're meant to be thematic. Ogres and dire tigers are thematic. They're not going to sprout wings or pull out a composite longbow just because PCs have got a permanent fly ability that was no part of the core rulebook (except for high-level wizards, who already have any number of ways to defeat that kind of enemy).
MY ogres usually have composite long bows. . . their Ints aren't that low that they don't see the value of having a ranged weapon.
Every humanoid monster I run has at least some ranged option. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The core combat interaction of the game was intended to be ground melee... with most of the creatures you encounter would not be flying ones.
Then why is flight so easy for sorcerers, wizards, and druids (and clerics, as soon as they can planar ally) -- classes that can all target opponents from a range using spells? And by the time your casters are flying reliably, the monsters generally are either flying, or have ranged attacks or spells, or very often both.
Because battlemat do not have three dimensions. You are only allowed to fly if you have spellcasting, since that is way easier to adjudicate spellcasting than melee without inch-precise positioning.
In the politest way possible, because flight is highly overvalued because monsters (and/or the underlying combat system) are very poorly designed. Far too many monsters are absolutely useless against something faster or that can fly. Whether this is because ranged combat is exceedingly difficult for "monsters" or the monsters are just poorly designed, I don't know, but it is a significant problem that's frequently addressed by... well, not letting the players fly.Monsters aren't meant to be 'designed' to be able to fight back against any possible threat. They're meant to be thematic. Ogres and dire tigers are thematic. They're not going to sprout wings or pull out a composite longbow just because PCs have got a permanent fly ability that was no part of the core rulebook (except for high-level wizards, who already have any number of ways to defeat that kind of enemy).
Then your thematic enemy is going to go down like a chump. A victim of his own crippling overspecialization, because it was too stupid to pick up a rock and chuck it or Ready an attack.
Which is thematic in itself, really.
You can't really have it both ways. You can either have "thematic" enemies (which to you seems to mean "can only do one thing"), or PCs with options.
Because the PCs will always have options the "thematic" enemies won't be able to deal with (until, suddenly around CR 6 or so, they can. Funny, that...).
Well, yeah: high CR monster often have a wide variety of superpowers, to counter high level PCs who are always flying or invisible. If we make constant flight commonly available to PCs from level 1 instead of level 9 (less for druids, I suppose), then low-level PCs will have to fight flying wolves, or wolves who shoot bees from their mouths, instead of the regular kind.
Well, yeah: high CR monster often have a wide variety of superpowers, to counter high level PCs who are always flying or invisible. If we make constant flight commonly available to PCs from level 1 instead of level 9 (less for druids, I suppose), then low-level PCs will have to fight flying wolves, or wolves who shoot bees from their mouths, instead of the regular kind.
Flying wolves that shoot bees out of their mouths is totally going to be something my PCs need to fight in their next session. Thank you!
|
|
Because battlemat do not have three dimensions. You are only allowed to fly if you have spellcasting, since that is way easier to adjudicate spellcasting than melee without inch-precise positioning.
Yeah - the flying rules should really be a bit more abstract. Trying to actually follow the flying rules between multiple melee combatants - especially once some get Flyby Attack and/or Ride by Attack - is a hot mess.
Because battlemat do not have three dimensions. You are only allowed to fly if you have spellcasting, since that is way easier to adjudicate spellcasting than melee without inch-precise positioning.
If the battlemat is serving as a barrier to participation for melee guys, I'd suggest chucking it out the window, then. YMMV.
Because battlemat do not have three dimensions. You are only allowed to fly if you have spellcasting, since that is way easier to adjudicate spellcasting than melee without inch-precise positioning.If the battlemat is serving as a barrier to participation for melee guys, I'd suggest chucking it out the window, then. YMMV.
Once you chuck the battlemap from your Pathfinder games, you may want to consider playing Savage Worlds or so. Both have their appeal, but taking away the tactical combat from Pathfinder removes a big chuck of the system, and a lot of class abilities no longer really make sense after that.
Mind, that's not saying either is better than the other - just that the choice has consequences.
Admission: I threw away the battlemat sometime during 1st edition. I really don't miss it.
Admission: I threw away the battlemat sometime during 1st edition. I really don't miss it.
1st and 2nd edition D&D work very well without a mat. I never played with one until 3rd edition. With that change, though, a VERY large number of abilities become quite dependent on a grid. There are lots of other games that work quite well without one. Pathfinder really isn't without massive rules modifications.
Well, yeah: high CR monster often have a wide variety of superpowers, to counter high level PCs who are always flying or invisible. If we make constant flight commonly available to PCs from level 1 instead of level 9 (less for druids, I suppose), then low-level PCs will have to fight flying wolves, or wolves who shoot bees from their mouths, instead of the regular kind.
Except we're talking about constant flight from level 7 (when the animal grows a size large enough to carry a Medium creature), so I don't see the issue.
Design Manager
|
At low level flight And lance break the game totally. At high levels , its fine
Hunters have access to flying mounts and proficiency with the lance at level 1, druids can do it with a feat. Basically anyone who gets access to the full druid animal companion list, which is typically 2/3 casters and above (I think the Beastmaster ranger is one of the few exceptions).
The prohibition against flying mounts/AnCs is pretty specific to the non casters and quarter casters only (which is why some people get kind of offended when Monstrous Mount is brought up, since it's making noncasters pay a huge cost for things the casting classes get for free).
There are lots of other games that work quite well without one (a grid). Pathfinder really isn't without massive rules modifications.
My Pathfinder rewrite is 600 pages long -- that's massive. Of those, I think half a page deals with how to play without a grid. That sort of puts that into perspective.
|
|
There are lots of other games that work quite well without one (a grid). Pathfinder really isn't without massive rules modifications.My Pathfinder rewrite is 600 pages long -- that's massive. Of those, I think half a page deals with how to play without a grid. That sort of puts that into perspective.
Then it doesn't really sound like you're playing Pathfinder at all anymore.
Nothing wrong with that - it just makes this particular point kind of moot.
Then it doesn't really sound like you're playing Pathfinder at all anymore. Nothing wrong with that - it just makes this particular point kind of moot.
Not at all -- you could throw away the rest of the 599 pages, and still be able to play Pathfinder without a grid. It's not as hard as people think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play without a grid most of the time, drawing one up for complicated combats for my own sanity if nothing else.
It's very, very doable.
my group is kind of forced to use a battle map because we are using Roll20 to game
there are ways to do 3D battles on a battle map, they do so on Critical Role when ever they face a flying foe or when the party had a flying carpet
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play without a grid most of the time, drawing one up for complicated combats for my own sanity if nothing else.
It's very, very doable.
Grids unnecessarily slow down the game when used for non-critical encounters. We generally play theater of the mind and only bust out the maps and grids for high stakes encounters, dungeon crawls, or fights where terrain is a relevant part of the challenge.
It's not that difficult to get a flying creature to fall by wounding it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly it's way less about having flight be magic only and way more about how incredibly tough it is for people who can't fly to contribute when flying is involved.
An ogre can carry a longbow, sure. But then he goes from 2d8+7 damage to 2d6 damage (also 3 less to his attack bonus), and any increase in this damage with a +str bow means also increasing the hell out of the bow's cost. Most animals can't fight in the air at all, which is generally fine because they're animals and this should be expected. Maybe in your head it's okay for ogres too. The problem is this also extends to the cavalier. Without flight, he can't fight flying enemies all that well. He may have a bow but without the feat investment in ranged combat (and he doesn't have nearly enough feats for both), his attacks will be much worse in terms of what he has to go against. Similarly, his size and armor is pretty valueless when the flying enemies can literally fly over him. Some people have noted that flying won't be a huge benefit in some environments and situations, such as low ceilings. This is true, and I agree that some classes should thrive more in certain situations. The problem is less that "wizards do better in open spaces where they can fly freely" and more "non-flying melee types can't contribute at all even a little in such spaces."
I've actually found flying to be not that much of an issue for a single low level party member, especially if they're the party's "tank." Leaving your non-flying allies behind to take to the air is pretty damming to the poor pedestrians.
A flying mount is, when you get down to it, a staple of the traditional fantasy story at the high level. When you're fighting powerful evil demons and going into new planes of existence and the like, having a horse that can keep up with you is honestly sort of silly. Imagine a horse fighting and defeating a huge dragon in single combat and it is just bizarre. At that point in the story, a fantasy style mount is just natural, and that mount really should have some sort of fantastic movement. That this is incredibly difficult to get without huge feat investment is a huge disappointment in the main. Especially when you consider that natural flight, such as that of the griffon, is a lot worse than magical flight in general. Anyway hashtag free flying mounts.
|
Not to mention depending on the race. The condition of any weapon and it use is questionable. God only knows what a Ogre would have done with the Longbow first. Considering how screwed up the race is in Golarion. Having a weapon means also having to maintain and make sure it works. I can see say a hobgoblin because of their martial bent take good care of one. Orcs maybe. I just can't see so many chaotically aligned monster races taking good care of their weapons imo.
An ogre can carry a longbow, sure. But then he goes from 2d8+7 damage to 2d6 damage (also 3 less to his attack bonus), and any increase in this damage with a +str bow means also increasing the hell out of the bow's cost.
Make them use slings, it's free and will do 1d6+5 damage, instead of 2d6 with a bow. More thematic too, I guess.
Or give them the Rock Throwing ability.
I think this is really one of those things that are up to a GM. If the GM wants flying mounts in their game they can allow it. Since players and GM make up the game then a discussion is warranted about what type of game it will be.
If player asked to run a game where his Cavalier could get a flying mount I'd be fine with it. It wouldn't be a first level and I'd slip in other methods for rest of the players to keep up. Most likely a flying carpet in some loot about the time the Cavalier gets the flying mount.
Actually if you are a half-orc and wait until level 7, you can get a pteranodon with one feat using the Beast Rider feat from Advanced Race Guide.
Or you could use Leadership and just get the beast you want... Just not from 1st level.
and every time it dies, you suffer -1 to your leadership!
for ogres, you are definitely better off with javelins or sling rocks then composite longbows, which they couldn't make for themselves (they don't have the skill ranks or intelligence to make size L bows, and whose gonna supply them?) and using Str-based weapons makes MUCH more sense.
technically, Airborne mounts should move much faster then overland flight does, except for the AC specific nerfing of this. undo that, and you get what is appropriate....riders are faster on mounts, magical flight is more manuverable.
==Aelryinth